quagmire in afghanistan?

we've been there longer than iraq, and NATO has been pretty ineffective at counter-insurgency. the tribalism (a necessary component for the aid & harboring of extremists) is pervasive, and pakistan has been equally ineffective for their part in the border regions. with little support for western ideologies, how can afghanistan be 'restored', or at least contained to the point of no longer needing a visible military presence?

we've seen that the most effective military operations occur when we strike hard, fast, and with what can best be called 'moral clarity' (e.g., bombing the snot out of the taliban in tora bora). this is most effectively realized w/ our navy & a.f., not 100,000 boots on the ground. (recall the soviets deployed 300,000 troops & still could not defeat the mujahadeen). yes, i realize we need a few guys to laze targets, but that's where your compact & low-pro tactical teams come in. i'm not sure having a sustained presence (through bases) in the ME is all that beneficial. if nothing else, it could fuel ideologies which exploit flashpoints of violence. specifically, i'm thinking of kobar towers in saudi arabia & marine barracks in beruit, attacks on which happened during supposed peace time. i guess i'm thinking there has to be a solution which is kind of like south america: we're overtly involved only when **** leaks over the borders (except, of course, for drugs).

i'm having difficulty in resolving how to deny sanctuary while also respecting sovereignty. bill kristol would not be proud of me today.